Friday, March 05, 2004
$10 Contribution Doesn't Go Too Far Compared to Out of District Fat Cats
All Modesto and Beatrice Huriega live in Bexar County Texas. They wanted to get a "No Parking" sign put up on their street, but for years couldn't get anyone in government to pay attention. So, according to this story in the San Antonio Express News, they decide to give a $10 campaign contribution to a local politician.
Sounds like it didn't do much good, mostly because the politicians were raising most of their money from people who don't even live in Bexar County. According to the Express News:
"Their $10 is a pittance compared with the multithousand-dollar contributions being pumped into the race for Precinct 1 county commissioner, and the three Democratic hopefuls seeking to represent the Huriegas are raising more money outside the South Side precinct than in it. A lot more."
Turns out that ninety percent of the funds candidates had raised in this race had come from sources outside that precinct. Some money came from as far away as California and Georgia. What do donors their care about races in Bexar County Texas? Well, they do business with the county. Helping elect politicians who like them helps ensure that they'll keep getting county contracts.
"It's legal, but only because we haven't made it illegal," says University of Texas professor Heywood Sanders.
Wonder what they're waiting for.
All Modesto and Beatrice Huriega live in Bexar County Texas. They wanted to get a "No Parking" sign put up on their street, but for years couldn't get anyone in government to pay attention. So, according to this story in the San Antonio Express News, they decide to give a $10 campaign contribution to a local politician.
Sounds like it didn't do much good, mostly because the politicians were raising most of their money from people who don't even live in Bexar County. According to the Express News:
"Their $10 is a pittance compared with the multithousand-dollar contributions being pumped into the race for Precinct 1 county commissioner, and the three Democratic hopefuls seeking to represent the Huriegas are raising more money outside the South Side precinct than in it. A lot more."
Turns out that ninety percent of the funds candidates had raised in this race had come from sources outside that precinct. Some money came from as far away as California and Georgia. What do donors their care about races in Bexar County Texas? Well, they do business with the county. Helping elect politicians who like them helps ensure that they'll keep getting county contracts.
"It's legal, but only because we haven't made it illegal," says University of Texas professor Heywood Sanders.
Wonder what they're waiting for.
Thursday, March 04, 2004
So-Called Reform Leads to More Big Money for Senators
The Federal Elections Commission has released data showing that after the passage of the "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act" or BCRA, Senate candidates have raised a whopping 72% more than before the new law went into effect.
How could this happen? Well, maybe because the law passed by these very same Senators INCREASED rather than decreasing the size of the contributions that they could accept from the largest of donors.
House candidates, on the whole, have only raised 12% more than they were raising before BCRA. This is probably because House candidates tend to rely more on smaller donors, and rely more heavily on support from large groups of small donors organized in political action committees. The limits on what those groups can give or accept did not change in BCRA. Much of this PAC money is still coming from big donors, who can give up to $5000 to a PAC, but some of it comes in small amounts from the rest of us. Now, those small amounts matter less, while the big checks add up to even more.
When looking at the Senate and House combined, overall fundraising is up 32%. How exactly did the politicians of both parties get away with calling this reform?
The Federal Elections Commission has released data showing that after the passage of the "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act" or BCRA, Senate candidates have raised a whopping 72% more than before the new law went into effect.
How could this happen? Well, maybe because the law passed by these very same Senators INCREASED rather than decreasing the size of the contributions that they could accept from the largest of donors.
House candidates, on the whole, have only raised 12% more than they were raising before BCRA. This is probably because House candidates tend to rely more on smaller donors, and rely more heavily on support from large groups of small donors organized in political action committees. The limits on what those groups can give or accept did not change in BCRA. Much of this PAC money is still coming from big donors, who can give up to $5000 to a PAC, but some of it comes in small amounts from the rest of us. Now, those small amounts matter less, while the big checks add up to even more.
When looking at the Senate and House combined, overall fundraising is up 32%. How exactly did the politicians of both parties get away with calling this reform?
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
How One Man is Losing His Political Voice
A column by Palm Beach Post editorial writer Joel Englehart highlights how modern, big money campaigns have diminished the speech of ordinary citizens.
Jack Sheehan has made a practice out of endorsing candidates since the 1960s. He does so by placing a sign in his front yard, letting his neighbors know who he supports. This used to matter, says Englehart, "it used to be that putting up a campaign sign meant something. Candidates would prostrate themselves before neighborhood leaders, get their signs up and wait for the votes to come."
Now, candidates don't need folks like Jack so much. They spend millions on their own political speech, reaching voters directly with ads and junk mail. They put up signs on busy corners, with little connection to the people who actually live there. Or worse yet, they let others do this for them, hiding behind front groups that nobody has ever heard of.
In a simpler time, where people spent less on speech, every one of us could afford to have our voice heard. But now that we've embraced the notion that "money is speech," it means only a few can afford to have a voice. The rest of us can still put up our signs, but they get buried in the mudslinging and big money ads. That's not what the First Amendment is all about.
A column by Palm Beach Post editorial writer Joel Englehart highlights how modern, big money campaigns have diminished the speech of ordinary citizens.
Jack Sheehan has made a practice out of endorsing candidates since the 1960s. He does so by placing a sign in his front yard, letting his neighbors know who he supports. This used to matter, says Englehart, "it used to be that putting up a campaign sign meant something. Candidates would prostrate themselves before neighborhood leaders, get their signs up and wait for the votes to come."
Now, candidates don't need folks like Jack so much. They spend millions on their own political speech, reaching voters directly with ads and junk mail. They put up signs on busy corners, with little connection to the people who actually live there. Or worse yet, they let others do this for them, hiding behind front groups that nobody has ever heard of.
In a simpler time, where people spent less on speech, every one of us could afford to have our voice heard. But now that we've embraced the notion that "money is speech," it means only a few can afford to have a voice. The rest of us can still put up our signs, but they get buried in the mudslinging and big money ads. That's not what the First Amendment is all about.
Monday, March 01, 2004
Sheriff Takes Contributions from Scofflaw
Here's an interesting story about how a sheriff in Texas has accepted some $3500 in campaign contributions from a man who has been convicted of selling the illegal drug methamphetamine and is currently facing charges for shooting at his neighbor. Other neighbors claim that the sheriff has gone easy on the man after they've lodged complaints about his dumping of refrigerators or oil containers near their property.
The sheriff says that ""I have never taken a campaign contribution with anything attached to it. No one has ever handed me a check and said, 'Here's a contribution to your campaign if you do me a favor."
Maybe so, but the ex-con certainly seems to want to keep the sheriff in office. His ability, and willingness, to spend $3500 to keep a friend in office suggests that even if there's nothing corrupt with the sheriff, there certainly is with the local campaign finance laws.
My question is, how come the media doesn't pay similar attention to when a scofflaw corporation that has been convicted to dumping illegal substances gives money to help elect the people that enforce the laws that impact them?
Here's an interesting story about how a sheriff in Texas has accepted some $3500 in campaign contributions from a man who has been convicted of selling the illegal drug methamphetamine and is currently facing charges for shooting at his neighbor. Other neighbors claim that the sheriff has gone easy on the man after they've lodged complaints about his dumping of refrigerators or oil containers near their property.
The sheriff says that ""I have never taken a campaign contribution with anything attached to it. No one has ever handed me a check and said, 'Here's a contribution to your campaign if you do me a favor."
Maybe so, but the ex-con certainly seems to want to keep the sheriff in office. His ability, and willingness, to spend $3500 to keep a friend in office suggests that even if there's nothing corrupt with the sheriff, there certainly is with the local campaign finance laws.
My question is, how come the media doesn't pay similar attention to when a scofflaw corporation that has been convicted to dumping illegal substances gives money to help elect the people that enforce the laws that impact them?
